THIRD SESSION

(Saturday night, 25th of Rajab, 1345 A.H.)

Hafiz: Based on your talk last night, I conclude that the Shias are divided into a number
of factions. Will you kindly let us know which of them you accept so that we may restrict
our discussion to that faction.

SHIAS NOT DIVIDED INTO FACTIONS

I didn't say that the Shias are divided into factions. Shias are devoted to Allah and
followers of the Prophet and his descendants. Of course some factions have assumed the
name of Shia to mislead people. They took advantage of the name of the Shias, preached
false beliefs, and spread confusion. Uninformed people have included their names among
the Shias. There are four such factions, two of which have survived: the Zaidiyya, the
Kaysaniyya, the Qaddahiyya, and the Ghullat.

THE ZAIDIYYAS
The Zaidiyyas follow Zaid Bin Ali Bin Husain. They consider Imam Zainu'l-Abidin's
son, Zaid, to be his successor. At present these people are found in large numbers in
Yemen and its surroundings. They believe that of the descendants of Ali and Fatima, he is
"The Imam who is learned, pious, and brave. He draws the sword and rises against the
enemy." During the time of the oppressive Umayyad Caliph, Hisham bin Abdu'l-Malik,
Hazrat Zaid rose against those in authority and courted martyrdom and was therefore
acknowledged as Imam by the Zaidiyyas. The fact is that Zaid possessed a far higher
position than that which the Zaidiyyin claim for him. He was a great Seyyed of the
Hashimite dynasty, and was known for his piety, wisdom, prayers, and bravery. He
passed many sleepless nights in prayer and fasted frequently. The Prophet prophesied his
martyrdom, as narrated by Imam Husain: "The Holy Prophet put his sacred hand on my
back and said: 'O Husain, it will not be long until a man will be born among your
descendants. He will be called Zaid; he will be killed as a martyr. On the day of
resurrection, he and his companions will enter heaven, setting their feet on the necks of
the people.'" But Zaid himself never claimed to be an Imam. It is sheer slander for people
to say that he did. In fact, he recognized Muhammad Baqir as the Imam and pledged his
full obedience to him.

It was only after Muhammad Baqir's demise that unknowing people adopted the doctrine
that "he is not the Imam who remains sitting at home and hides himself from the people;
the Imam is one who is a descendant of Hazrat Fatima, an Alim, and who draws the
sword and rises against the enemy and invites people to his side." The Zaidiyyas are
divided into five factions: 1) Mughairiyya; 2) Jarudiyya; 3) Zakariyya; 4) Khashbiyya;
and 5) Khaliqiyya.
 THE KAYSANIYYAS AND THEIR BELIEF
The second faction is the Kaysaniyyas. These are the companions of Kaysan, a slave of
Ali Bin Abu Talib, who had freed him. These people believe that after Imam Hasan and
Imam Husain, Muhammad Hanafiyya, the next eldest son of Commander of the Faithful,
Ali, was the Imam. But Muhammad Hanafiyya himself never claimed this. He was called
the sincerest of devotees. He was known for his knowledge, piety, devotion, and
obedience to divine commandments. Some ignorant men produced evidence of what they
called his opposition to Imam Zainu'l-Abidin. They claimed that Muhammad Hanafiyya
claimed to be the Imam.

The fact was otherwise. He never claimed to be the Imam. He wanted to show his
ignorant followers the rank and position of the fourth Imam, Zainu'l-Abidin. The result
was that, in the same holy mosque when Hajaru'l-Aswad (The Black Holy Stone)
affirmed the Imamate of Imam Zainu'l-Abidin, Abu Khalid Kabuli, chief of the followers
of Muhammad Hanafiyya, along with all other followers, acknowledged Imam Zainu'l-
Abidin as the Imam. But a group of cunning people misled the simple and ignorant
people by saying that Muhammad Bin Hanafiyya had only shown modesty, that in the
face of the Umayyads it was most desirable for Muhammad Hanifiyya to do as he did.

After the death of Muhammad Hanifiyya, these people said that he was not dead, that he
had hidden himself in a cave of Mount Rizwi, and that he would reappear in the future to
fill the world with justice and peace. This group contained four sub-factions: 1)
Mukhtariyya; 2) Karbiyya; 3) Ishaqiyya and 4) Harabiyya.

But none of them exists today.

THE QADDAHIYYAS AND THEIR BELIEF

The third faction, Qaddahiyya, calls itself Shia, but it is a group of infidels. This sect
originated in Egypt by Ma'mun Ibn Salim (or Disan) known as Qada and Issa Chahar
Lakhtan (Jesus of Four Parts). They took it upon themselves to interpret the Holy Qur'an
and the records of history according to their own wishes. They hold that there are two
codes of religion: one secret and the other manifest. The secret code was given by Allah
to the holy Prophet Muhammad. The Prophet gave it to Ali, and he gave it to his
descendants and to the pure Shias. They believe that those who know the secret code are
exempt from prayers and the worship of Allah.

They have founded their religion on seven pillars. They believe in seven Prophets, and in
seven Imams, the seventh Imam being in occultation. They are awaiting his appearance.
They are divided into two factions:

1) The Nasiriyya were the companions of Nasir Khusru Alawi, who through his poems,
speeches, and books attracted a large number of people to infidelity. They were spread
over Tabaristan in large numbers.
2) The Sabahiyya (known in the West as the Assassins). They were the companions of
Hasan Sabba, a native of Egypt who came to Iran, and caused the tragic events of
Alamut, which resulted in the slaughter of large numbers of people. These facts are
preserved in the records of history.

THE GHULLAT AND THEIR BELIEF

The fourth faction is that of the Ghalis, which is the most debased of all sects. They are
incorrectly known as Shias. In fact they are all unbelievers. They are divided into seven
factions: 1) Saba'iyya; 2) Mansuriyya; 3) Gharabiyya; 4) Bazighiyya; 5) Yaqubiyya; 6)
Isma'iliyya; and 7) Azdariyya.

Not only we Shia Ithna Asharis (who believe in the twelve Imams), but all Muslims of
the world reject their faith.

SHIA IMAMIYYA ITHNA ASHARI

AND THEIR BELIEF
This is the real Shia group, which believes in the twelve Imams after the Holy Prophet.
The other factions have nothing in common with our group; they have only assumed the
name Shia.

BELIEF IN ALLAH AND THE PROPHETS

The Shia Imamiyya group believes in the Ever-Existing Almighty Allah. He is One, in the
sense of the absolute oneness of His essential existence. He is One, with none comparable
to Him. He is the Creator of everything in existence. There is no match or equal to Him in
any respect. The holy prophets and messengers were sent to tell the people about Allah,
how to worship Him, and how to know Him. All of the prophets preached and guided the
people according to the tenets set forth by the five major prophets: Noah, Abraham,
Moses, Jesus, and last of all, the Holy Prophet Muhammad, whose religion shall last until
the Day of Judgement.

BELIEF IN CHASTISEMENT, REWARD, HELL,

PARADISE, AND DAY OF JUDGEMENT
Allah Almighty has fixed recompense for our deeds, to be given to us in Paradise or Hell.
The day fixed for the recompense of our deeds is called the Day of Judgement. When the
world's life ends, Allah Almighty will re-animate the beings of the world from the
beginning to the end. He will let them gather in the Mashar, the place of the gathering of
the souls. After a just reckoning, everyone will be given reward or punishment according
to his deeds.

These things have been foretold in all divine books: the Torah, Bible, and the Holy
Qur'an. For us, the most authentic source of guidance is the Holy Qur'an, which has
reached us from the time of the Holy Prophet without any change. We act upon the
injunctions contained in the Holy Qur'an, and we hope to be recompensed by Allah. We
believe in all those obligatory commandments which are contained in the Holy Qur'an,
like Namaz (prayers), Ruza (fasting), Zakat and Khums (yearly religious taxes), Hajj
(Pilgrimage to the Ka'ba) and Jihad (holy war).

BELIEF IN THE ARTICLES OF PRACTICE

Similarly, we believe in the Articles of Practice of the faith, including the obligatory and
optional practices and all other injunctions that have reached us through the holy Prophet.
We are determined to abide by them and to perform them to the best of our capacity. And
we refrain from all sins, large or small, like drinking, gambling, fornication, sodomy,
usury, murder, tyranny, which have been forbidden in the Holy Qur'an and hadith.

BELIEF IN IMAMS
We Shias also believe that, just as there is a messenger from Allah who conveys to us
orders and injunctions, and who is elected and introduced to us by Allah, there is also a
successor, caliph or protector of religion, who is appointed by Allah, and is introduced to
us through the Prophet of Allah. Accordingly, all prophets of Allah introduced their
successors to their umma (followers). The last of the holy prophets, who was the most
perfect and most exalted of all prophets of Allah, left for his followers guides to help the
people avoid confusion. According to the established hadith, he introduced to the people
his twelve successors, the first: Ali Bin Abi Talib. The last Imam, the Mahdi, who is
present in the world but is in occultation, will appear at an unknown time in the future,
when he will fill the seething world with justice and peace.

The Shia Imamiyyas also believe that these twelve Imams have been ordained by Allah
and have been introduced to us through the last Holy Prophet. The last of the holy Imams
has vanished from sight (by divine command), just as other Imams disappeared, during
the time of previous prophets, as stated in many books written by your ulema.

This sacred being has been preserved by Allah Almighty so that he may one day fill the
world with justice. In short, the Shia believe in all that is contained in the Holy Qur'an
and in authentic hadith. I am grateful to Allah that I have adopted these beliefs, not
merely in blind imitation of my parents but through logical reasoning and study.

Hafiz: Respected sir, I am indeed obliged to you for having explained the Shia beliefs,
but there are hadith and supplications in your books which run counter to your statements
and establish the heresy of the Shias.
Well-Wisher: Please be specific.

OBJECTION ON HADITH OF MA'RIFA

(TRADITION OF KNOWLEDGE OF ALLAH)
Hafiz: In Tafsir-e-Safi, written by one of your high-ranking ulema, Faiz Kashi, there is a
hadith that one day Imam Husain, the Martyr of Karbala, addressing his companions said:
"O people, Allah Almighty has not created his servants but to know Him. When they
knew Him, they worshipped Him, when they worshipped Him, they became adverse to
worship of any other thing." One of the Companions said:

"May the lives of my father and mother be sacrificed to you! O son of the Holy Prophet!
What is the real meaning of knowing Allah?" The Holy Imam replied, "For every man to
know Allah means to know the Imam of his time, who must be obeyed."

Well-Wisher: First, we must examine the chain of narrators of the hadith in order to
establish whether it is authentic. Even if it is correct with regard to the chain of narrators,
yet the verses of the Holy Qur'an and the unquestionable hadith of the Holy Prophet in
regard to the Oneness of Allah cannot be misconstrued because of the assertion of one
man.

Why don't you examine the hadith and sayings of our Holy Imams, and the religious
dialogues between our religious heads and the atheists, which already prove the unity of
Allah? Why don't you consult the chief books and commentaries of the Shias, such as
Tauhid-e-Mufazzal, Tauhid-e-Saduq, Biharu'l-Anwar (Book of Tauhid) of Allama Majlisi
and other books written by Shia ulema, which are full of continuous hadith (on Tauhid)
by our holy Imams?

Why don't you consult An-Naktu'l-I'tiqadiyya, by Sheikh Mufid (d. 413 A.H.), one of the
Shia ulema, and also his book Awa'ilu'l-Maqalat fi'l-Mazahib wa'l-Mukhtarra or Ihtijaj by
our famous Alim, Abu Mansur Ahmad Bin Ali Bin Abu Talib Tabrasi. If you had, you
would know how our holy Imam Reza proved the unity of Allah. It is not fair to pick out
some dubious report simply to malign the Shias. Your own books contain absurdities and
whimsical ideas. In fact, ridiculous hadith exist in your most authentic books ù the Siha-
e-Sitta, (i.e., the Six Books of Accepted Traditions).

Hafiz: In fact, your words are ridiculous since you find fault with books whose greatness
and authenticity are unquestionable, particularly the Sahih Bukhari, and Sahih Muslim.
Our ulema agree that all the hadith contained in them are true. If someone rejects these
two books, he rejects the real Sunni sect. After the Holy Qur'an, Sunnis rely upon the
authenticity of these two books. Perhaps you have seen Ibn Hajar Makki's point in the
beginning of his Sawa'iqe Muhriqa, chapter of "The Affairs" (affairs of the caliphate of
Abu Bakr) as recorded by Bukhari and Muslim in their Sahihain, which are the most
authentic and reliable books after the Holy Qur'an, according to the unanimity of the
followers (i.e., the umma, or community). He says that since the whole community is
unanimous in accepting the hadith of these books, whatever the community holds with
one accord is unquestionable. On the basis of this agreement, all the hadith contained in
these books are undoubtedly acceptable. Hence, no one can have the courage to assert
that these books contain absurdities or ridiculous matter.

ABSURD REPORTS IN SAHIHAIN (THE TWO

COLLECTIONS) OF BUKHARI AND MUSLIM
Well-Wisher: First, that these books are acceptable to the whole community is open to
objection. Your claim with reference to Ibn Hajar is, itself, absurd since 100 million
Muslims do not accept his point. Hence, the unanimity of the community in the matter is
just like the unanimity claimed by your people in the matter of the caliphate. Secondly,
what I say is based on valid reasons. If you study those books with an unprejudiced mind,
you will be astonished. Many of your great ulema, such as Dar Qutni, Ibn Hazam, Allama
Abu'l-Fazl Ja'far Bin Tha'labi in Kitabu'l-Imta' fi Ahkamu's-Sama', Sheikh Abdu'l-Qadir
Bin Muhammad Qarshi in Jawahiru'l-Mazay'a fi Tabaqatu'l-Hanafiyya, and others,
including all the Hanafi ulema, have criticized the Sahihain and have acknowledged that
they contain a number of weak and unconfirmed hadith. The objective of Bukhari and
Muslim was to collect hadith; not to consider their authenticity. Some of your research
scholars, like Kamalu'd-Din Ja'far Bin Sa'lih have taken great pains in pointing out the
defects and faults of the hadith and have set forth valid grounds in support of their
findings.

Hafiz: I would welcome it if you would put forward the arguments so that the audience
may know the truth.

Well-Wisher: I will cite only a few examples.

REFERENCES ABOUT VISIBILITY OF ALLAH

If you wish to study misleading hadith regarding the incarnation of Allah, which contend
that He, as a physical being, can be seen in this world, or will be seen in the Hereafter, (as
believed by a faction of the Sunnis, i.e., the Hanbalites and Asharites), you may refer to
your own books, particularly Sahih Bukhari (Vol. I, in the Chapter "Fazla's-Sujud Min
Kitabu'l-Adhan," page 100; Vol. IV, p.92 of Sahih Muslim, "Babu's-Sira Min Kitabu'r-
Riqaq,"and also Sahih Muslim (Vol. I, in the Chapter "Isbatu'l-Ruyatu'l-Mu'minin
Rabbahum Fi'l-Akhira," page 86); and Musnad of Imam Hanbal, Volume II, page 275.
You will find sufficient information of this type in those books. For example, Abu
Huraira says: "The clamor and violent rage of Hell will intensify, it will not calm down
until Allah puts His leg in it. Then Hell will say, 'Stop, stop! It is enough for me; it is
enough for me.'" Abu Huraira also narrates that a group of people asked the holy Prophet,
"Shall we see our Creator on the Day of Judgement?" He replied, "Of course. At mid-day
when the sky is free of clouds, does the Sun hurt you, if you look at it?" They said: "No!"
Again he said: "During the nights when you see the full moon when the sky is clear, does
it hurt you?" They said: "No!" He continued: "So when you see Allah Almighty on the
Day of Judgement, you will not be hurt, just as you are not hurt by seeing these (the sun
and the moon). When the Day of Judgement comes, it will be announced by Allah that
every community should follow it's god. So everyone who has worshiped idols or
anything other than Allah, The One, shall be thrust into Hell fire. So shall everyone of the
good and bad persons be thrown into it except those who worshipped Allah, the Absolute
One. They shall lie in Hellfire. At that time Allah will appear in a particular form before
the people so that they can see Him. Then Allah will tell them that He is their Allah. The
believers will then say, 'We take refuge in Your Godhead. We are not among those who
have worshiped anything except Allah the Absolute.' Allah will say in reply, 'Have you
any sign between you and Allah so that you may see Him and identify Him?' They will
say, 'Yes.' Then Allah will show them His bare leg. Thereupon the believers will raise
their heads upwards and will see Him in the same condition as they saw Him for the first
time. Then Allah will say that He is their Creator. All of them will acknowledge that He is
their Allah."

Now it is for you to judge whether this kind of statement is tantamount to infidelity or
not, that Allah would physically appear before the people and would uncover His leg!
And the strongest point in support of my argument is that Muslim Bin Hajjaj begins a
Chapter in his Sahih about the proof of the visibility of Almighty Allah, and has quoted
the fabricated reports from Abu Huraira, Zaid Bin Aslam, Suwaid Bin Sa'id, and others.
And some of the leading ulema of your own sect like Dhahabi in Mizanu'l-I'tidal and
Suyuti in his Kitabu'l-Lu'ualia'l-Masnu'a fi hadithu'l-Muzu'a, and Sibt Ibn Jauzi in Al-
Muzu'a, have proved on reasonable grounds that these narrations are fabricated.

HOLY QUR'AN REJECTS DOCTRINE

OF VISIBILITY OF ALLAH
Even if there had been no proof against the above assertions, the verse of the Holy Qur'an
explicitly rejects the doctrine of the visibility of Allah. Allah says: "Vision comprehends
Him not, and He comprehends (all) vision_." (6:103)

Again, when the Prophet Moses was compelled by the Israelites to go to his place of
prayer and beseech Allah to "show Himself to him," the Holy Qur'an records the event as
follows: " He (Moses) said: 'My Lord! Show me (Thyself), so that I may look upon Thee.'
He said: 'You cannot (bear to) see me...'" (7:143)

Seyyed Abdu'l-Hayy (Imam of the Jama'at Ahle-Sunna): it not a fact that Ali said: "I do
not worship a god whom I do not see?"

When Ali says such a thing, it means that Allah can be seen.
 ARGUMENTS AND HADITH ABOUT
THE INVISIBILITY OF ALLAH
Well-Wisher: Respected friend, you have taken one sentence out of context. I will recite
the whole text to you. This hadith has been recorded by the great Sheikh Muhammad Ibn
Yaqub Kulaini in his Usul Kafi, Volume on Tauhid, as well as Sheikh Saduq in his Book
on Tauhid, Chapter "Ibtal Aqida Ruyatullah." Imam Ja'far as-Sadiq is quoted as saying a
Jewish scholar asked the Commander of the Faithful, Ali, whether he had seen Allah at
the time of prayers. The Imam replied: "He cannot be seen by these physical eyes. It is
the heart which sees Him through the light of the realities of conviction." It follows from
Ali's reply that what he means by seeing Allah is not seeing Him with the eyes but
through the light of sincere faith. There are many other proofs based on reason and
recorded facts to substantiate our point of view. Moreover, apart from Shia scholars, your
own ulema, like Qazi Baidhawi and Jarullah Zamakhshari, have proved in their
commentaries that it is impossible to see Allah. One who believes in the visibility of
Allah, in this world or in the Hereafter, believes that He is a physical being. To believe
this is infidelity.

FURTHER REFERENCES TO ABSURDITIES

IN TWO COLLECTIONS OF TRADITIONS
You consider that your six traditional books, particularly those of Bukhari and Muslim,
are like revealed books. I wish that you could look at them objectively and not exceed
limits in your praise for them. Bukhari, in the Chapter "Kitab-e-Ghusl," and Muslim in
Part II of his Sahih (in the Chapter on Virtues of the Prophet Moses), and Imam Ahmad
Bin Hanbal in his Musnad, Part II, page 315, and others of your ulema have quoted Abu
Huraira as saying: "Among the Bani Isra'il it was customary to bathe together without
clothes, so that they glanced at the genitals of one another. They did not consider it
objectionable. Only the Prophet Moses went into the water alone, so that no one could
see his private parts. The Bani Isra'il used to say that the Prophet Moses had defective
genitals, so he avoided bathing with them. One day the Prophet Moses went to the river
to bathe. He took off his clothes, put them over a stone, and went into the water. The
stone fled with his clothes. Moses ran after the stone, naked, shouting: 'My clothes! O
stone, my clothes.' The Bani Israel saw the naked Moses and said: 'By Allah! Moses has
no defect in his genitals. The stone then stopped and Moses retrieved his clothes. Then
Moses beat the stone so severely that six or seven times the stone shrieked in pain." Do
you actually believe such a thing is possible for the holy Prophet Moses, or that a stone,
an inanimate object, could take away his clothes? Surely it would be impossible for a
Prophet to run naked before the people.

I will relate another hadith recorded in the Sahih, which is even more ridiculous. Bukhari
quotes Abu Huraira in his Sahih (Volume I, page 158 and Volume II, page 163) and again
in the Chapter "Death of the Prophet Moses" and Muslim also quotes the same authority
(Abu Huraira) in his Sahih, Volume II, page 309 in the Chapter "On The Merits of
Moses" as saying: "The Angel of Death came to the Prophet Moses and asked him to
accept the invitation of his Creator. Upon hearing this, Moses gave him such a slap in his
face that he lost one of his eyes. So he went back to Allah and complained that he had
sent him to a man who did not want to die and who had knocked out one of his eyes.
Allah cured his eye and ordered him to go again to Moses and to tell him that if he
wanted longer life, he should lay his hand on the back of a bull. He would live for as
many years as the number of hairs that would be covered by his hand." Imam Ahmad Bin
Hanbal in his Musnad, Volume II, page 315, and Muhammad Bin Jarir Tabari in his
History, Volume I, under the heading "Death of the Prophet Moses," gave the same
account from Abu Huraira with the addition that up to the time of Moses, the Angel of
Death used to physically separate the soul from the body. But after Moses gave him a
slap in the face, he came unseen.

Now it is for you to judge what sort of nonsense this is which is included in the two
collections of traditions, which you call the most correct of all books after the Holy
Qur'an. The reports I have cited certainly insult the honor of the prophets of Allah. As for
Abu Huraira, I am not surprised at his narrations. Your own ulema admit that in order to
fill his belly from the dainty dishes provided by Mu'awiya, he fabricated reports. Because
of his fabrications, Caliph Umar had him lashed. It is surprising that sensible people
believe in such ridiculous stories.

Now let's return to our discussion regarding the hadith you quoted. Obviously, a just man
who sees a lone narration (narrated by only one person) would compare it with other
authentic hadith. He would either correct it or reject it outright, rather than use it as a
basis for attacking his brothers of another sect and calling them infidels. Since the Tafsir-
e-Safi is not here with us, we cannot say anything about the authenticity of this hadith.
Even if it is true, we should rely on the principle that if we know the effect, we can know
the cause. That is, if we know the Imam as Imam, we certainly know the identity of
Allah, in the same way that if one knows the prime minister, he knows the King. It is in
reference to this principle that the chapter "Tauhid" and other verses of the Holy Qur'an
were revealed. Moreover, there are many hadith about the unity of Allah narrated by
Imam Husain himself and other Imams. To know our Imam is a great form of worship of
Allah. The same meaning has been given in Ziarat-e-Jami'a, which has come down to us
from our Holy Imam. We may also interpret it in another way, as scholars have done in
similar matters. Every performer of an action may be understood by the nature of his
action. Since the Prophet and his descendants attained the highest level of human
possibility, no others are as meritorious or virtuous as they. Since they are the most
evident means of knowing Allah, anyone who knows them, knows Allah. As they have
themselves said: "It is through us that Allah can be known, and it is through us that Allah
can be served." We believe that the Prophet's family taught us knowledge about Allah and
the proper way to worship Him. Those who have not followed them have lost the way.

HADITH-E-THAQALAIN
To stress the same point, the Prophet said in a hadith acknowledged by both sects, "O my
people! I leave behind me for you two great objects (of authority): The book of Allah and
my Ahle Bait. Should you remain attached to these two, never, never shall you be misled
after me (for verily these two shall never, never be separated from each other until they
meet me at the Fountain of Kauthar).

Hafiz: We do not rely on this tradition, which you try to revise. There are many
innovations in your books and examples of polytheism, like seeking fulfillment of our
desires from the Imams rather than from Allah. What is polytheism? Polytheism means to
turn to any other person or thing rather than to Allah for the satisfaction of our needs. It
has been observed that Shias never invoke Allah. They invoke the Imams. It is nothing
but polytheism.

Well-Wisher: I am afraid you distort facts. Perhaps I may be allowed to tell you what
polytheism is according to the great ulema of Islam and according to the verses of the
Holy Qur'an.

POLYTHEISM AND ITS KINDS

Polytheism is of two kinds: open polytheism and hidden polytheism. Open polytheism
means to associate someone or something with Allah's All-Perfect Self or with His
attributes. Making partners with Allah means associating something with His Oneness
and acknowledging this association with the tongue, like the Sanamiyyas (idol-
worshippers) or the Zoroastrians, who believe in two principles: light and darkness.
Christians also do this. They believe in the trinity and divide divinity into three parts ù
father, son, and holy spirit. They believe in separate characteristics for each, and unless
the three are united, the Divine self is not complete. The Holy Qur'an rejects this belief,
and Allah Almighty declares His Oneness in these words: "Certainly they disbelieve who
say: 'Surely Allah is the third (person) of three;' there is no god but the one Allah...."
(5:73)

Associating things with divine attributes means believing that His attributes, like His
knowledge or might, are separate from, or in addition to, His All-Perfect Self. The
Asharis of Abu'l-Hasan Ali Bin Isma'il Ashari Basari, are reported by your own leading
ulema, like Ali Bin Ahmad in his book Al-Kashf and Minhaju'l-Adilla fi Aqa'idi'l-Milla
(The Open Just Revelation of the Beliefs of Nations), page 57, to believe that the
attributes of Allah are in addition to His All-Perfect Self, and are eternal. So anyone who
believes that any quality or attribute of His is in any way an addition to His All-Perfect
Self is a polytheist. Every attribute of His is essential to Him. Polytheism in one's actions
means to associate someone with His Ever-Independent Will. The Jews believe that Allah
created creatures and then kept Himself aloof from His creatures. In condemnation of
these people, the following verse was revealed: "And the Jews say: 'The hand of Allah is
tied!' Their hands shall be shackled and they shall be cursed for what they say. Nay, both
His hands are spread out; He expends as He pleases...." (5:64)
The Gallis or Ghullat (extremists) form another group of polytheists. They are also called
Mufawwiza. They believe that Allah has delegated His powers or entrusted all affairs to
the holy Imams. According to them, the Imams are the creators, and they also give us
sustenance. Obviously, those who consider someone a partner in divine authority is a
polytheist.

POLYTHEISM IN PRAYER
Polytheism in prayer means deliberately turning one's attention during prayers toward a
created being rather than toward Allah. If one intends to pray to a created being, he is a
polytheist. The Holy Qur'an forbids it in these words. " ...whoever hopes to meet his
Lord, he should do good deeds, and not join anyone in the service of his Lord." (18:110)
This verse shows that the fundamental article of faith is that man should do whatever is
good and should not associate anyone with Allah in offering obedience and worship to
Him. In other words, he who offers prayers or performs the Hajj, or does any good act
merely to show to the public his righteousness, he is a polytheist. He has associated
others with Allah in the matter of performing his deeds. The vain display of good deeds is
minor polytheism, which negates our good actions. It has been reported that the holy
Prophet said: "Abstain from minor Polytheism." People asked him, "O, Prophet of Allah,
what is minor polytheism?" He replied, "Al-riya wa's-sama'" (i.e., to show people, or to
let them hear of your worship of Allah). Also the holy Prophet said: "The worst thing
which I fear for you is your hidden polytheism; so rise above it since among my
followers polytheism is more secret than the creeping of the ant on a hard stone in the
dark night." Again he said: "One who offers the ritual prayer in an ostentatious way, is a
polytheist. One who keeps the fast, or gives alms, or performs the Hajj, or frees a slave to
show to the public his righteousness or to earn a good name is a polytheist." And since
this last line refers to matters of the heart, it has been included in hidden polytheism.

Hafiz: We note of your own statement that if someone makes an offering to any created
being, he is a polytheist. So the Shias are also polytheists since they make offerings to the
holy Imams and their sons.

CONCERNING OFFERINGS OR PLEDGES

Well-Wisher: If we wish to determine the faith of a community, we should not rely on
the uninformed people of that community. We should study their reliable books. If you
wish to study Shia'ism, don't start with Shia beggars on roads, crying "O Ali, O Imam
Reza," and on that ground declare that Shias are polytheists. Similarly, if ignorant people
make pledges or offerings in the name of the Imams or their sons, you should not slander
all of Shia'ism. If you study Shia books of jurisprudence, you will find that there is not a
single trace of polytheism, or absurdity. The insistence on the Oneness of Allah is
manifest everywhere. The most famous books, Sharhe lum'a and Shara'i, are widely
available and you may study them. In the Chapter "Offerings," the legal pronouncements
of Shia jurists are cited, both in the two works cited above and in many other
publications. Since nazr is a kind of prayer, it is essential that there should be an intention
that it be for the sake of seeking nearness to Allah. There are two conditions for a valid
nazr: intention of the heart and utterance or expression in prescribed words in whatever
language it may be. Regarding the first condition, the intention of the heart must be for
the sake of Allah. The second condition completes the first condition; the person who
makes the offering (nazr) must say in words that it is for Allah. For instance, if he pledges
to keep a fast or to give up drinking, he must make the intention using the prescribed
words, which contain the word "Lillah" (for the sake of Allah), without which the
offering is invalid.

OFFERINGS IN THE NAME OF ALLAH

If we make an offering not in the name of Allah, but for someone else, whether he be
dead or alive, or if we include him with the name of Allah, even if he is an Imam or his
son, the offering is not valid. If this is done deliberately and knowingly then it is evident
polytheism, as is clear from the verse, "...and not join anyone in the service of his Lord."
(18:110) Shia jurists agree that to make an offering in the name of any person, including
Prophets or Imams, is wrong. If it is done intentionally, it is polytheism. An offering must
be made in the name of Allah, although we are authorized to do it whenever we like. For
instance, if someone in the name of Allah takes a goat to a particular house or place of
worship or to the tomb of an Imam or son of an Imam and sacrifices it, there is no harm
in it. Also, if he pledges and gives money or clothes in the name of Allah to a certain
Seyyed, a descendant of the Prophet, or gives alms to an orphan or beggar, there is no
harm in it. Of course, if he pledges to make an offering simply for the sake of the Prophet
or an Imam, a son of an Imam, or for some other person, it is forbidden. If done
intentionally, it is polytheism. It is the duty of every prophet or religious authority to
admonish people as the Holy Qur'an says, "Say: Obey Allah and obey the Apostle; but if
you turn back, then on him rests that which is imposed on him and on you rests that
which is imposed on you...." (24:54)

It is people's duty to hear what the Prophet of Allah says and to act upon it. If, however,
someone does not care to follow divine precepts and does not act on them, it does not
harm the faith or the principles in which the faith is founded.

HIDDEN POLYTHEISM:
MAKING A DISPLAY OF PRAYERS
The second kind of polytheism is hidden polytheism, such as making a display of our
prayers or other forms of obedience to Allah. The difference between this polytheism and
polytheism in prayers is that in the case of polytheism in prayers we associate some other
thing or being with Allah. If someone directs his attention towards anything other than
Allah, in the ritual prayer, or if, by the suggestion of shaitan, he has a picture of a false
deity in his mind, or if his guide is the center of his attention, then he is a polytheist.
Nothing except Allah, should be the object of attention in our worship. The Prophet said
that if someone does a good deed and makes someone else a partner with Allah in it, then
his whole deed is for the partner. Allah hates that action as well as its doer. It has also
been reported that the Holy Prophet said that if someone offers the ritual prayer, observes
a fast, or performs the Pilgrimage and has the idea that by his doing so the people will
praise him, "then verily, he has made a partner with Allah in his action."

It has also been reported from Imam Ja'far Sadiq that if someone performs an action for
fear of Allah, or for the recompense in the hereafter, and includes in it the pleasure of a
human being, then the doer of that action is a polytheist.

POLYTHEISM REGARDING CAUSATION

One kind of polytheism is that which relates to causation since most people base their
hopes and fears on secondary causes. This is also polytheism, but it is pardonable.
Polytheism means to think that power lies intrinsically in secondary causes. For instance,
the sun nourishes many things in the world, but if one considers this power to be inherent
in the sun, then this is polytheism. However, if we believe that the power of the sun is
given to it by Allah, and that the sun is only a secondary means of His munificence, then
this is never polytheism. It is rather a form of worship since to pay attention to the signs
of Allah is a prelude to attending to Allah. A reference has been made in the verses of the
Holy Qur'an to the fact that we should ponder the signs of Allah since this leads the
attention toward Allah. In the same way, reliance on secondary causes (a tradesman's
attention to trade, or a farmer's attention to his farm) make one a polytheist if he thereby
diverts his attention from Allah.

Based on the above explanation of polytheism, which of the examples cited do you
consider to be applicable to Shias? In what way, from the point of view of prayer, faith, or
the Shia traditions that you have seen, can they be charged with polytheism?

Hafiz: I admit that all you have said is correct, but if you would just take the trouble to
think for a moment, you will agree that to rely on the imams is polytheism. Since we
should not seek any human means of approach to Allah, we should invoke Allah directly
for help.

WHY PROPHETS SOUGHT HELP FROM PEOPLE

Well-Wisher: It is strange that you ignore what I have been saying here all along. Is it
polytheism to make requests of other people for the fulfillment of our desires? If this
were true, the whole of humanity is polytheistic. If to seek help from others is
polytheism, why did the Prophet seek help from people? You should study the verses of
the Holy Qur'an so that you may know what is true and correct. The following verses are
worth attention: "He said: 'O chiefs which of you can bring to me her throne before they
come to me in submission?' One audacious among the Jinn said: 'I will bring it to you
before you rise up from your place; and most surely I am strong (and) trusty for it.' One
who had the knowledge of the Book said: 'I will bring it to you in the twinkling of an
eye.' Then when he saw it settled beside him, he said: 'This is of the grace of my Lord....'"
(27:38-40)

The bringing of the throne of Bilqis (Queen of Sheba) to Solomon was impossible for
every creature. Admittedly, it was unusual, and the Prophet Solomon, despite his knowing
that it required divine power, did not ask Almighty Allah to bring the throne but asked
mere creatures to help him. This fact shows that seeking others' help is not polytheism.
Allah, the first cause, is the Creator of the causes of this world. Polytheism is a matter of
the heart. If a man asks for someone's help and does not consider him Allah or His
partner, it is not forbidden. This situation is common everywhere. People go to the houses
of others and ask them for help without taking the name of Allah. If I go to a physician
and ask him to cure me, am I a polytheist? Again, if a man is drowning, and he cries for
help, is he a polytheist? So please be fair and do not misconstrue facts. The whole Shia
community believes that if anyone considers the descendants of the Prophet as being
Allah or partners in His Self, he is surely a polytheist. You might have heard Shias in
trouble crying, "O Ali, help me!" "O Husain, help me!" This does not mean that they are
saying "O Allah Ali, help me!" "O Allah Husain, help me!" But the fact is that since the
world is a house of secondary causes, we consider them the means of deliverance from
troubles. We seek the help of Allah through them.

Hafiz: Instead of invoking Allah directly, why do you invoke the means?

Well-Wisher: Our permanent attention regarding our desires, distresses, and anguish is
fixed upon Allah, the Absolute. But the Holy Qur'an says that we should reach Almighty
Allah, through some means of approach. "O you who believe! Do your duty to Allah and
seek the means of approach to Him." (5:38)

THE HOLY AHLE MUHAMMAD

(DESCENDANTS OF THE PROPHET)
ARE MEANS OF DIVINE BOUNTY
We Shias do not regard the descendants of the Prophet as the solution to all our problems.
We regard them as the most pious of the servants of Allah and as a means of divine
bounty. We attach ourselves to that exalted family according to the injunction of the
Prophet.

Hafiz: Why do you say that the words "means of approach" in the above verse refer to
the descendants of the Holy Prophet?

Well-Wisher: In many hadith, the Prophet recommended to us that in our troubles we

invoke his descendants as a means of approach to Allah. Many of your ulema, like Hafiz
Abu Nu'aim Isfahani, in his Nuzulu'l-Qur'an fi Ali (Revelations in the Qur'an about Ali),
Hafiz Abu Bakr Shirazi in his Ma Nazala mina'l-Qur'an fi Ali and Imam Ahmad Tha'labi
in his Tafsir (Commentary) say that wasilat (means of approach) in the above verse
means the descendants of the Prophet. This reference has been apparent from many
hadith of the Prophet. Ibn Abi'l-Hadid Mu'tazali, one of your respected ulema, says in his
Sharhe Nahju'l-Balagha, Volume IV, page 79, that Bibi Fatima Zahra referred to the
meaning of this verse in the presence of the Muhajirs and Ansars, while delivering her
address in connection with the usurpation of her estate of Fadak, in these words:

"I praise Allah for Whose Dignity and Light the residents of the skies and the earth seek
means of approach towards Him. Among His creation we are the means of approach."

HADITH-E-THAQALAIN
(HADITH OF TWO GREAT THINGS)
Among the many accepted arguments about the lawfulness of our following the
descendants of the Prophet is the Hadith Thaqalain, whose authenticity has been
acknowledged by both the sects. The Prophet said: "If you keep yourselves attached to
these two, never, never will you go astray after me."

Hafiz: I think you are mistaken when you say that this hadith is authentic and that it has
been accepted by all since it is unknown by our great ulema. To prove this I may say that
the greatest narrator of hadith of our sect, Muhammad Bin Isma'il Bukhari, does not
record it in his Sahih, which is the most authentic book after the Holy Qur'an.

Well-Wisher: I am not mistaken about it. The authenticity of this holy hadith has been
acknowledged by your own ulema. Even Ibn Hajar Makki, for all his intolerance and
prejudice, accepts it as true. You should consult Sawa'iq Muhriqa (Part II Chapter II,
pages 89-90, under verse 4) in which, after quoting the statements of Tirmidhi, Imam
Ahmad Bin Hanbal, Tibrani, and Muslim, he says: "Know that the hadith concerning
attachment to the Thaqalain (the holy descendants of the Prophet and the Holy Qur'an)
has been narrated in many ways. The narrators of this hadith number more than twenty
companions of the Prophet."

Then he says that there is some difference in the manner in which this tradition has been
narrated. Some say that it was narrated when the Prophet was on his last Hajj at Arafa;
some say it was related in Medina, when the Holy Prophet was on his death bed, and his
room was full of his companions; others say that it was narrated at Ghadir-e-Khum; and
some say it was narrated after his return from Ta'if. After saying all this, he (Hajar Makki)
himself comments that there is no significant difference in the hadith itself. As for all the
different occasions, it is probable that the Prophet recounted this tradition time and again
in order to emphasize the greatness of the Holy Qur'an and his holy descendants. You said
that since Bukhari has not recorded this hadith in his Sahih, its authenticity is
questionable. But this hadith, although not recorded by Bukhari, has been generally
quoted by the major ulema of your sect, including Muslim Bin Hujjaj and other authors
of the six collections of Traditions, who have exhaustively dealt with it in their books and
do not rely solely on the collection of Bukhari. If you acknowledge the justice of all your
own ulema, all of whom were recognized by the Sunnis of the past, you should accept as
true the hadith, which for some reason has not been recorded by Bukhari.

Hafiz: There was no motive behind that. Bukhari was very cautious in the matter of
recording reports. He was a careful scholar, and if he found the hadith, from the point of
view of its text or source, to be harmful or unacceptable to common sense, he did not
record it.

Well-Wisher: As the proverb goes: "Love for something makes a man blind and deaf."
The respected Sunnis are mistaken here. You are too enthusiastic in your love for Imam
Bukhari. You say that he was a very minute scrutinizer of facts, and that the reports of his
Sahih are reliable and deserve the rank of revelation. But the fact is otherwise. The chain
of reports mentioned by Bukhari consists of persons who are often condemned as liars.

Hafiz: Your assertion is false. You denigrate Bukhari's learning and ability, which is an
insult to the whole Sunni Sect.

Well-Wisher: If criticism based on knowledge is an insult, then many of your own most
distinguished ulema are men who have insulted the high position of learning and
erudition. I would advise you to study for yourself the books written by great authors and
ulema of your sect who have made comments on Bukhari's Sahih, e.g., Al-Lu'ali'l-
Masnu'a fi hadithi'l-Muzu'a by Suyuti, Mizanu'l-Ibtidal and Talkhisu'l-Mustadrak of
Dhahabi; Tadhkiratu'l-Muzu'a by Ibn Jauzi; The History of Baghdad, compiled by Abu
Bakr Ahmad Bin Ali Khatib Baghdad, and other books of Rijal (namely, treatises on the
character of narrators of Traditions) by many of your great ulema. If you read these
books, you will not dare say that I have insulted Imam Bukhari.

BUKHARI AND MUSLIM HAVE

RECORDED MANY TRADITIONS
REPORTED BY FABRICATORS
What I have said is this: the two books, Sahih Muslim and Sahih Bukhari, contain hadith
narrated by liars. If you study Sahih Muslim and Sahih Bukhari in the light of the books
of Rijal, you will find that they have recorded many hadith reported from men who were
great liars, e.g., Abu Huraira, the notorious liar, Ikrima Kharji, Sulayman Bin Amr, and
others of the same category. Bukhari was not so cautious in recording hadith as you think.
He did not record the Hadith-e-Thaqalain, which others have done, but he had no
hesitation in recording ludicrous and insulting stories about the Prophet Moses slapping
the face of the Angel of Death, the Prophet Moses' running away naked after a stone, and
Allah's visibility. Consider another ridiculous and insulting story recorded by Bukhari in
his Sahih, Volume II, Chapter ""Al-Lahr Bi'l-Harb," page 120, and by Muslim in his
Sahih Volume I, quoting Abu Huraira as saying that on the Eid (a holiday) some
Sudanese nomads gathered in the Mosque of the Prophet. They entertained spectators
with their sport and performances. The Prophet asked A'yesha if she would like to
witness the performances. She said she would. The Prophet let her mount on his back in
such a way that she had her head over his shoulders and her face on the head of the
Prophet. In order to amuse A'yesha, the Holy Prophet was asking the entertainers to stage
a better dance. At last A'yesha became tired, and the holy Prophet let her get down on the
ground! Judge for yourself whether such a story is not insulting. If Bukhari was so
cautious about recording facts, was it fair on his part to record such foolish stories in his
Sahih. But even now you characterize these books as the most authentic ones after the
Holy Qur'an. Of course Bukhari took special care to omit the matter of the Imamate and
the Vicegerency of Ali, as well as the matter of the Ahle Bait. Probably he feared such
information might some day be used as a weapon against the opponents of the Ahle Bait.

MANY AUTHENTIC HADITH REGARDING

AHLE BAIT SCRUPULOUSLY AVOIDED
So when we compare the Sahih Bukhari with other Siha, we come to the conclusion that
on this topic, the Ahle Bait, a hadith, however authentic and fully supported by writers in
the light of the Holy Qur'an it may be, Bukhari has purposely failed to record it. For
instance, there are many verses of the Holy Qur'an, revelations which have a direct
bearing on the hadith (Hadith-e-Wilaya on the Day of Ghadir; Hadith-e-Inzar-e-Yaumu'd-
Dar; Hadithu'l-Muwakhat; Hadith-e-Safina; Hadith-e-Babu'l-Hitta, etc.) which concern
the respect for, and vicegerency of, the descendants of the Holy Prophet. These have been
avoided scrupulously by Bukhari. And on the other hand, those so-called "ahadith" which
humiliate the prophets, particularly our Prophet and his chaste descendants, are recorded
in his book without the least consideration that they have been reported by liars.

SOURCES OF HADITH-E-THAQALAIN
As for the hadith of Thaqalain (two weighty things), which Bukhari has not included in
his collection, the other authentic books of your sect have related it. In fact, even the
great traditionist, Muslim, who is regarded as being equal to Bukhari, has also related it.
The other scholars who have related this tradition are the following: Muslim bin Hajjaj in
his Sahih, Volume VII, page 122; Abu Dawud in his Sahih; Tirmidhi in his Sunan, Part 2,
page 307; Nisa'i in his Khasa'is, page 30; Imam Ahmad Bin Hanbal in his Musnad,
Volume III, page 14-17, Volume IV, page 26 and 59, and Volume V, page 182 and 189,
Hakim in Mustadrak, Volume III, page 109 and 148; Hafiz Abu Nu'aim Isfahani in his
Hilyatu'l-Auliya, Volume I, page 355; Sibt Ibn Jauzi in his Tadhkira, page 182; Ibn Athir
Jazari in his Usudu'l-Ghaiba, Volume II, page 12 and Volume III, page 147; Hamidi in
Jama' Baina's-Sahihain; Razin in his Jama' Baina's-Siha-e-Sitta; Tibrani in his Ta'rikh-e-
Kabir; Dhahabi in his Talkhis-e-Mustadrak;
Ibn Abd Rabbih in his Iqdu'l-Farid; Muhammad bin Talha Shafi'i in is Matalibu's-Su'ul;
Khatib Khawarizmi in Manaqib; Sulayman Balkhi Hanafi in Yanabiu'l-Mawadda,
Chapter page 18, 25, 29, 30, 31, 32, 32, 34, 95, 115, 126, 199 and 230, with slight
narrations in words; ir Seyyed Ali Hamadani in the second Mawadda of his Mawaddatu'l-
Qurba; Ibn Abi'l-Hadid in Sharh Nahju'l-Balagha; Shablanji in Nuru'l-Absar, page 99;
Nuru'd-Din bin Sabbagh Maliki in Fusulu'l Muhimma, page 25; Hamwaini in Fara'idu's-
Simtain; Imam Tha'labi in Tafsir Kashfu'l-Bayan; Sam'ani and Ibn Maghazili Shafi'i in
Manaqib; Muhammad bin Yusuf Ganji Shafi'i in Kifayatu'l-Talib, Chapter I, in the
account of the authenticity of the sermon of Ghadir Khum and also in Chapter 62, page
130; Muhammad bin Sa'ad Katib in Tabaqa, Volume 4, page 8; Fakhru'd-Din Razi in
Tafsir Kabir, Volume 3, under the verse of Etesam, page 18; Ibn Kathir Damishqi in
Tafsir, Volume 4, under the verse of Mawadda, page 113, Ibn Hajar Makki in Sawa'iq-e-
Muhriqa; pages 75, 87, 90, 99 and 136 with variations of words.

There are several other scholars of your sect whose names I cannot relate in this meeting
because of the lack of time. Many of your scholars have related this important hadith
from the Holy Prophet so commonly and with unbroken continuity of narration from one
to the other that it has attained the status of a regularly narrated hadith. According to this
hadith, the Prophet said the following: "I leave among you two weighty things: the Book
of Allah and my progeny. If you keep yourselves attached to these two, never, never will
you go astray. These two will never be separated from each other until they meet me at
the Fountain of Kauthar."

Based on this genuine hadith, we hold that we should seek adherence to the Holy Qur'an
and the Ahle Bait of Muhammad.

Sheikh: This hadith of the Prophet has been related by Salih Bin Musa Bin Abdullah Bin
Ishaq, through his accredited chain of narrators saying that Abu Huraira reported it in this
way: "I leave behind me two great things: The Book of Allah (the Holy Qur'an) and my
sunna (tradition)...."

Well-Wisher: You again quote the hadith from the same wicked person who has been
rejected by critics of the Shia (like Dhahabi, Yahya, Imam Nisa'i, Bukhari and Ibn Adi,
etc.). Aren't you satisfied with the reliable references that I have made from your own
great ulema regarding this hadith? You quote an unacceptable version of the hadith even
though both Shias and Sunnis have accepted that the Holy Prophet used the words "the
Book of Allah and my progeny," and not "my sunna." In fact, "Book" (Qur'an) and
"sunna" (tradition) both require interpretation. Traditions, therefore, cannot explain the
Holy Qur'an. So the progeny of the Prophet, who are the equals of the Holy Qur'an, are
the real interpreters of the Qur'an, as well as the traditions (sunna) of the Prophet.

HADITH-E-SAFINA
Another reason we seek attachment to the descendants of the Prophet is the authentic
Hadith-e-Safina, which has been narrated by all of your great ulema, almost without
exception, and with unbroken continuity.
More than a hundred of your own scholars have related this hadith: Muslim bin Hajjaj in
Sahih, Imam Ahmad Bin Hanbal in Musnad, Hafiz Abu Nu'aim in Hilyatu'l-Auliya; Ibn
Abdi'l-Birr in Isti'ab; Abu Bakr Khatib Baghdadi in Ta'rikh-e-Baghdad; Muhammad bin
Talha Shafi'i in Matalibu's-Su'uli; Ibn Athir in Nihaya; Sibt Ibn Jauzi in Tadhkira; Ibn
Sabbagh-e-Makki in Fusulu'l-Muhimma; Allama Nuru'd-Din Samhudi in Ta'rikhu'l-
Medina; Seyyed Mu'min Shablanji in Nuru'l-Absar; Imam Fakhru'd-Din Razi in Tafsir-e-
Mafatihu'l-Ghaib; Jalalu'd-din Suyuti in Durru'l-Mansur; Imam Tha'labi in Tafsir-e-
Kashfu'l-Bayan; Tabrani in Ausat; Hakim in Mustadrak, Volume 3, page 151; Sulayman
Balkhi Hanafi in Yanabiu'l-Mawadda, Chapter 4; Mir Seyyed Ali Hamadani in
Mawaddatu'l-Qurba, Mawadda 2; Ibn Hajar Makki in Sawa'iqu'l-Muhriqa under verse 8;
Tabari in his Tafsir as well as his History; Muhammad bin Yusuf Ganji Shafi'i in
Kifayatu't-Talib, Chapter 100, page 233. Many other great scholars of your sect have
related that the Holy Prophet said: "The likeness of my Ahle Bait is that of the Ark of
Noah. He who gets into it is saved; he who turns away from it will be drowned and lost."

Imam Muhammad Bin Idris Shafi'i has referred to the authenticity of this hadith in his
couplets which Allama Fazil Ajib recorded in his Zakhiratu'l-Ma'al. Imam Shafi'i, who is
recognized as one of the distinguished religious scholars of the Sunni sect, admits that
our attachment to the purified family of the Prophet is the means of our deliverance
because, of the seventy sects of Islam, the sect which follows the descendants of the
Prophet is the only one to secure deliverance.

SEEKING MEANS TO APPROACH

ALLAH NOT POLYTHEISM
You said that seeking means to reach Allah is polytheism. If this were true, why did
Caliph Umar Bin Khattab seek Allah's help through the descendants of the Prophet?

Hafiz: Caliph Umar never did so.

Well-Wisher: In times of need Umar sought the help of the descendants of the Prophet,
invoked Allah through them, and his wishes were fulfilled. I refer to only two such
occasions. Ibn Hajar Makki writes in his Sawa'iq-e-Muhriqa, after verse 14 (from The
History of Damascus) that in the 17th year of the Hijra people prayed for rain but to no
effect. Caliph Umar said that he would pray for rain the next day through the means of
approach to Allah. Next morning he went to Abbas, the uncle of the Prophet and said:
"Come out so that we may invoke Allah through you for rain."

Abbas asked Umar to sit for some time so that the means of approach to Allah could be
provided. The Bani Hashim (Ahle Bait) were then informed. Abbas then came out with
Ali, Imam Hasan, and Imam Husain. Other Bani Hashim were behind them. Abbas asked
Umar that no one else be added to their group. Then they went to the place of prayers
where Abbas raised his hands for prayers and said: "O Allah, you created us, and you
know about our actions. O Allah, as you were kind to us in the beginning, so be kind to us
in the end." Jabir says that their prayers had not ended when clouds appeared and it began
to rain. Before they could reach their homes, they were drenched.

Bukhari also reports that once during the time of famine Umar Bin Khattab invoked Allah
through Abbas Bin Abdu'l-Muttalib and said: "We betake ourselves to our Prophet's uncle
with you; so Allah, send down rain." Then it began to rain. Ibn Abi'l-Hadid Mu'tazali in
his Sharh Nahfu'l-Balagha (Egyptian edition), page 256, writes that Caliph Umar went
along with Abbas, the uncle of the Prophet, to invoke Allah for rain. In his prayers for
rain, Caliph Umar said: "O Allah, we betake ourselves to your Prophet's uncle and of his
ancestors and of their remaining respectable men. So guard the position of your Prophet
through his uncle. We were guided toward You through the Prophet so that we may seek
their help and do repentance."

If to seek out the descendants of the Prophet and to call upon them for our needs in the
way of Allah is polytheism, then Caliph Umar was the first polytheist. The Ahle-e-
Muhammad, from the time of the Prophet to this day, have been the means of approach in
our prayers and invocations of Allah. We regard them only as very pious people and the
nearest ones to Allah. Therefore, we consider them a means of our approach to Allah.
And the best proof for this is our books of invocation prescribed by our infallible Imams.
We accept the instructions of our Imams. I have two books with me: Zadu'l-Ma'ad by
Allama Majlisi and Hidayatu'z-Za'irin by Sheikh Abbas Qummi, which I present to you
for your consideration. (Both Hafiz and the Sheikh studied the books.) They read the
Du'a-e-Tawassul (invocation of seeking nearness), and they found that the Prophet's
family was part of the invocation. Everywhere they were mentioned as means of
approach to Allah. At that time Mulla Abdu'l-Hayy read the whole of Du'a-e-Tawassul,
prescribed by the purified Imams and quoted by Muhammad Bin Babawayh-e-Qummi.

DU'A-E-TAWASSUL
This is an invocation of Allah. Just as Ali has been addressed here, all of the Imams have
been addressed in the same manner. The influence of the family of the Prophet is sought
to approach Allah. They are addressed in this manner: "O our master and guide! We seek
your help to reach Allah. O most respected in the eyes of Allah Almighty: recommend us
to Him." The whole family of the Prophet has been addressed in a like manner.

SHIAS DO NOT MALIGN SUNNIS

When these invocations were being read, some Sunni gentleman exclaimed with wonder
and sorrow at what a great misunderstanding people had created. Well-Wisher asked: "Is
there any trace of polytheism in these invocations? Is not Allah's holy name present
everywhere? How many of your ignorant and intolerant people have murdered poor Shias
believing that they had killed an infidel? The responsibility of these affairs lies squarely
on ulema like yourselves. Have you ever heard that a single Shia has ever murdered a
Sunni? The fact is that the Shia ulema do not spread poison. They do not create enmity
between Shias and Sunnis, and they regard murder as a great sin. In matters of difference
of faith between them, they clarify positions through discussions based on knowledge and
logic, and let it be known through their talk that the Sunnis are their brothers. "

SUNNI ULEMA CALL SHIAS INFIDELS

On the other hand, the deeds of the fanatical Sunni ulema are noteworthy. The followers
of Abu Hanifa, Malik Bin Anas, Muhammad Bin Idris, and Ahmad Bin Hanbal, who have
significant differences, call the followers of Ali Bin Abu Talib and Imam Ja'far Bin
Muhammad polytheists and infidels. A great many learned and pious Shias were martyred
on verdicts given by Sunni ulema. Conversely, there is no such example of cruelty on the
part of Shia ulema. Your ulema often utter curses on Shias, but you will not find
anywhere curses on the Sunnis in the books written by Shia ulema.

Hafiz: You are not fair. You are stirring up hatred for nothing. Give a single example of a
learned Shia murdered on the verdict of our ulema! Who from our ulema has uttered
curses on the Shias?

Well-Wisher: If I were to go into the details of the deeds of your ulema or your common
people, one meeting would not be long enough. I will refer only to a few examples
regarding their deeds so that you may know that I am not stirring up hatred, but revealing
facts. If you study the books of your fanatical ulema, you will find sections where they
have cursed Shias. For instance, consult the books of Tafsir of Imam Fakhru'd-Din Razi.
Whenever he had the occasion, e.g., concerning the verses of Wilaya, he repeatedly
writes "Curse be on the Rafizis, curse be on the Rafizis!" But our ulema have never
written such things against our Sunni brothers.

An example of the cruel treatment of your ulema regarding Shia men of learning is the
verdict of two great Qazis of Syria (Burhanu'd-Din Maliki and Ibad Bin Jama'at Shafi'i)
against one of the great Shia jurists, Abu Abdullah Muhammad Bin Jamalu'd-Din Makki
Amili. That great jurist was known in his time for his piety and knowledge of
jurisprudence. An example of his scholarship is his book, Lum'a, which he wrote in seven
days without having with him any book on jurisprudence except Mukhtasar Nafi'.
Moreover, the ulema of the four schools of law (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i, and Hanbali),
were among his pupils. Because of the oppression by the Sunnis, this gentleman often
practiced Taqiyya (dissimulation in the face of danger), and did not openly declare his
Shia'ism. The great Qazi of Syria, Ibad Bin Jama'at, who nursed a grudge against him,
spoke ill of him to the ruler of Syria (Baidmar) and accused him of being a Rafizi and
Shia. This learned scholar was arrested. After suffering imprisonment and torture for a
year, on the verdict of those two qazis (Ibnu'l-Jama'at and Burhanu'd-Din) he was
murdered, and his body hanged on the gallows. Since they declared that a Rafizi and
polytheist was on the gallows, the common people stoned the body. Afterward, the body
was burned and the ashes scattered.
Among the ulema and the pride of Shia jurists in Syria in the 10th century Hijri, was
Sheikh Zainu'd-Din Bin Nuru'd-Din Ali Bin Ahmad Amili. He was well known among
both friends and foes for his learning and integrity. A prolific author, he kept aloof from
the world and wrote 200 books on various subjects. Although he led a secluded life, the
Sunni ulema developed animosity towards him, jealous of his popularity among the
people. The chief among his opponents was Qazi Sa'ida, who wrote to King Sultan Salim
the following complaint: "Verily, there lives in the territory of Syria a man who is an
innovator, one who does not belong to any one of the four schools of law." Sultan Salim
ordered that this jurist be presented to the court at Istanbul. He was arrested in Masjidu'l-
Haram and was kept prisoner in Mecca for forty days. On the sea journey to Istanbul, he
was beheaded and his body was thrown into the sea. Only his head was sent to the king.

Respected people! I beseech you in the Name of Allah to say whether you have ever
heard of such behavior on the part of the Shia ulema towards a Sunni because he did not
follow the Shia school of law. What argument can you advance to prove that if a man
deviates from any of the four schools of law, he is an infidel and his murder is obligatory?
Is it reasonable to follow schools of law which came into being centuries after the
Prophet, while those who follow the law which has existed since the time of the Holy
Prophet are ordered be murdered?

SHIAS AND THE FOUR SUNNI

SCHOOLS OF LAW
For Allah's sake please say whether the four Imams - Abu Hanifa, Malik, Shafi'i, and
Ahmad Bin Hanbal - were alive during the lifetime of the Prophet. Did they obtain the
fundamentals of the faith from the Prophet directly?

Hafiz: No one ever claimed this to be so.

Well-Wisher: Was not the Commander of the Faithful, Ali a constant associate of the
Prophet, and was he not declared to be the gate of the City of Knowledge?

Hafiz: He certainly was one of the dignified companions of the Prophet, and in some
respects he was superior to them all.

Well-Wisher: Are we not justified, therefore, in holding that to follow Ali is obligatory?
The Prophet himself said that obeying Ali was obeying him and that Ali was the gate of
the City of Knowledge? The Prophet also said that whoever wanted to gain knowledge
should go to Ali's door. Also, according to the Hadith-e-Thaqalain and the Hadith-e-
Safina, which are recognized by both Sunnis and Shias, deviation from the path shown by
the descendants of the Prophet will lead to our ruin. Dis-obedience to, or antagonism
against, the family of the Prophet, is tantamount to disobedience to the Prophet himself.
In spite of all this, the Shia ulema have never shown such intolerance towards even the
common Sunnis, not to speak of their ulema. We have always exhorted the Shias that the
Sunnis are our brothers in Islam, and we that should remain united. On the other hand,
the Sunni ulema have often incited their people, saying that Shias are innovators, Rafizis,
Ghalis, or Jews. They say that, since the Shia do not follow one of four Sunni jurists (Abu
Hanifa, Malik, Shafi'i, or Ahmad Bin Hanbal), they are infidels. The fact is that those
who follow the Prophet's progeny are rightly guided.

MURDERS OF SHIAS IN IRAN

AND AFGHANISTAN
The Turks, the Khawarizmis, the Uzbegs, and Afghans looted and murdered innocent
Shias. Muhammad Amin Khan Uzbeg, known as Khan Khawa, and Abdullah Khan
Uzbeg mercilessly murdered and looted Shias and admitted doing so. The Sunni ulema
proclaimed that the Shias were infidels and that their lives could be taken according to
religious law. The Amirs of Afghanistan acted in like manner. In 1267 A.H. on Ashura
(the 10th of Muharram), the Sunnis attacked the Imambara in Qandahar, where the Shias
were mourning the murder of the grandson of the Prophet. They brutally murdered many
Shias, including children, and plundered their property. For years the Shias led miserable
lives and were prohibited from observing their religious rites. On the day of Ashura, a
few of them would go into underground halls and secretly mourn Husain's martyrdom
and the others who were slaughtered on the plains of Karbala. It was King Amanullah
Khan who removed the ban on Shias and treated them kindly.

MARTYRDOM OF SHAHID-E-THALIS
In the cemetery of Akbarabad (Agra), India, there lies one of the most pious and learned
jurists of the Shias, Qazi Seyyed Nurullah Shustari. He was savagely murdered at the age
of 70 in 1019 A.H. by King Jahangir, following a verdict from the Sunni ulema that he
was a Rafizi.

Hafiz: You are attacking us without any reason. I am myself greatly shocked to hear the
excessively harsh behavior of ignorant people, but the practices of the Shias, too, were
responsible for such events.

Well-Wisher: May I know what the Shias did which warranted murder?

Hafiz: Every day thousands of people stand before the tombs of the dead and invoke
them for assistance. Isn't this practice an example of worshipping the dead? Why do the
ulema not object when millions of them put their faces on the ground prostrate in worship
of the dead? I wonder at how you still call these things monotheism.
As the discussion with Mawlana Hafiz continued, the Hanafi Jurist, Agha Sheikh Abdu-s-
Salam, was studying Hidayatu'z-Za'irin. He said with great emphasis, "Look here!
(pointing to the book). Your ulema say that when the pilgrims have finished their ziarat
(pious visit) in the mausoleums of the Imams, they should offer two units of Namaz-e-
Ziarat. Perhaps they do not intend it for the name of Allah; otherwise, what does Namaz-
e-Ziarat mean? Is it not polytheism to offer the ritual prayer for the Imam? Pilgrims who
stand with their faces towards the tomb and offer prayers are the best proof of their
polytheism. This is your authentic book. Can you defend your position?

Well-Wisher: You are indulging in childish talk! Have you ever been on such a
pilgrimage and seen the pilgrims firsthand?

Sheikh: No.

Well-Wisher: So how can you say that the pilgrims offer prayers with their faces
towards the tomb, and that this prayer of Ziarat is a sign of polytheism?

Sheikh: This book says that they should offer Namaz-e-Ziarat for the Imam.

Well-Wisher: Let me have a look at it. Let me read the instructions concerning Ziarat,
until we reach the subject of prayer, which is the point of your objection. Whenever you
find any trace of polytheism, please point it out. And if you find signs of monotheism
from top to bottom, do not feel sorry for that, but say that you were under a
misunderstanding. The book is here before you.

INSTRUCTIONS ABOUT ZIARAT

The instructions are as follows: "When the pilgrim reaches the ditch of Kufa, he stands
there and recites the following: 'Allah is Most Great, Allah is Most Great, the Possessor
of Greatness, Sublimity, and Eminence. Allah is Most Great, the Possessor of Greatness,
Holiness, Glory and Grace. Allah is Most Great above that which I fear. Allah is Most
Great. He is my Support; on Him do I rely and in Him lies my hope, and towards Him I
turn.'

When the pilgrim reaches the Gate of Najaf, he should recite: 'Praise be to Allah, who
guided us to this. We would not have been guided if Allah had not guided us.'

When he reaches the Gate of the Sacred Courtyard, he should recite, after praising Allah:
'I bear witness that there is no god except Allah, the One. He has no partner. I also bear
witness that Muhammad is His servant and His Prophet. He brought us truth from Allah. I
also bear witness that Ali is a servant of Allah and brother of the Prophet of Allah. Allah
is Most Great, Allah is Most Great, Allah is Most Great. There is no god except Allah,
and Allah is Most Great. All praise is due to Allah for His guidance and His support to
respond to what He has revealed on the way to Him.'
When the pilgrim reaches the gate of the mausoleum, he should recite: 'I bear witness that
there is no god but Allah, the One. He has no partner with Him....' until the end.

When, after having asked permission of Allah, the Prophet, and the Imams, the pilgrim
reaches the inside of the mausoleum, he recites various Ziarats which contain salutations
to the Holy Prophet and the Commander of the Faithful. After Ziarat, he offers six rak'ats
of ritual prayer ù two rak'ats for the Commander of the Faithful and two rak'ats each for
the Prophets Adam and Noah, who are buried in the same precincts."

NAMAZ-E-ZIARAT AND INVOCATIONS

AFTER THE PRAYER
Is the performance of the ritual prayer as an offering for the souls of parents and other
believers not enjoined upon us? Are these injunctions polytheism? It is for humanity's
sake also that when a man goes to see a friend he gives him some present. There is a
Chapter in the books of both sects in which the Prophet enjoins us to offer presents to the
believers. So when a pilgrim reaches the tomb of his beloved master and knows that the
thing which he loved most was the prayer, he offers two rak'ats of prayer in his approach
to Allah and offers the prayer as a present to the holy soul of the master. Is this
polytheism? After having read the principles underlying the prayer, read also the
invocation after the prayer, so that all your doubts may be removed.

INVOCATION AFTER NAMAZ

The practice of the invocation is that after completion of the prayer at the head of the
tomb of the buried Imam, with our faces towards the Ka'ba (not towards the tomb), we
recite the following invocation: "O Allah! I have made a present of this prayer to my
leader and master, your Prophet and the brother of your Prophet, the Commander of the
Faithful, Ali Bin Abu Talib. O Allah, send your blessings on Muhammad and his progeny.
Accept these two rak'ats of prayer from me and recompense me, as you would
recompense the doers of good deeds. O Allah! I offered this prayer for Your sake and
bowed down before You and prostrated in obeisance to You. You are One Who has no
partner. It is not permissible to offer prayer or to bow down or prostrate before any but
You. You are Allah, the Great, and there is no god except You."

Respected gentlemen! For Allah's sake, be fair. From the time a pilgrim sets his foot on
the soil of Najaf, until after he offers his Namaz-e-Ziarat, he is busy remembering Allah.

Sheikh: It is strange that do you not see here written: "Kiss the doorstep and enter the
haram (interior) of the mausoleum." We have heard that when the pilgrims reach the
doors of the mausoleum of their Imams, they prostrate in obeisance. Is this prostration not
for Ali? Is it not polytheism when we prostrate before someone other than Allah?
Well-Wisher: If I were you, I would not say a word. I would keep quiet until the last
meeting of this debate and listen to the logic of my responses. But I will tell you briefly
once more that kissing the threshold or the floor of the mausoleums of the Imams is not
polytheism. You have misinterpreted the word "kissing" and consider it equivalent to
prostration. When you read the book in our presence and make such radical changes, I
wonder how you will slander us when you are alone addressing the uninformed masses.

The instructions contained in this book and in all other books regarding invocations and
places of Ziarat are that the pilgrim, by way of showing respect, should kiss the threshold,
not prostrate. How can you consider kissing and prostration the same thing? And, where
have you seen, either in the Holy Qur'an or in any hadith, that kissing the threshold of the
mausoleums of a prophet or an Imam is prohibited? So if you have no reasonable reply to
this question, you should not waste our time. And, as you say, you have "heard" that the
pilgrims prostrate in obeisance. You have not actually seen this. The Qur'an says: "O you
who believe! If an evil-doer comes to you with a report, look carefully into it, lest you
harm a people in ignorance, then are sorry for what you have done." (49:6)

According to this injunction of the Holy Qur'an, we should not rely on the statement of a
wicked person. We should make strenuous efforts to know the truth, even undertake
journeys if necessary in order to ascertain the truth of a report firsthand. When I was in
Baghdad, I went to the tombs of Abu Hanifa and Sheikh Abdu'l-Qadir Jilani and saw
what the people did. It was more serious than what you described regarding Shia
practices, but I never talked about it. When I reached the tomb of Abu Hanifa at
Mu'azza'm, I found a group of Sunnis repeatedly kissing the floor, instead of the
threshold, and rolling on the ground. But since they did not appear to be malicious and
because I had no grounds for condemning them, I never mentioned the incident to
anyone. I understood that they were doing so out of love, not as worship.

Respected sir! Certainly no pious Shia ever prostrated for anyone but Allah. If, however,
we fall down on the ground in a manner similar to prostration and rub our foreheads on it
(without intention of worship), this is insignificant. To bow down before a respected
person without considering him Allah or to fall down on the ground and rub one's face on
it, is not polytheism. It is the result of intense love.

Sheikh: How is that when we fall down on the ground and put our forehead on it, that
this action would not amount to prostration?

Well-Wisher: Prostration depends on intention, and intention is a matter of the heart.

Only Allah knows our heart's intentions. For example, we may see people lying down on
the ground in the manner of ritual prostration. It is true that prostration to anyone but
Allah is not proper, even though it be without any intention. However, since we are not
aware of their heart's intention, we cannot call it ritual prostration.

PROSTRATION OF THE BROTHERS

 OF JOSEPH BEFORE HIM
Therefore, prostration in a manner similar to the ritual prostration (but without its
intention), to show reverence to someone is not polytheism. For example, the Prophet
Joseph's brothers prostrated before him. At that time, two Prophets, Jacob and Joseph,
were present, but they did not forbid them to do so. Allah says in the Chapter of Joseph in
the Holy Qur'an. "And he raised his parents upon the throne, and they fell down in
prostration before him, and he said: 'O my father, this is the significance of my vision of
old; my Lord has indeed made it to be true....'" (12:100)

Moreover, the Holy Qur'an says in several places that the Angels performed the
prostration before the Prophet Adam. So if prostration is polytheism, then the brothers of
the Prophet Joseph and the angels of Allah were all polytheists. Only the cursed Iblis
(Satan) was a monotheist!

INVOKING IMAMS IS NOT

WORSHIPING THE DEAD
Now I want to reply to the respected Hafiz, who said that invocation before the tombs of
the Holy Imams is tantamount to worshipping the dead. You ask why the Shia seek help
at the tombs of the Imams. Perhaps, you believe that there is no life after death and say,
"What is dead is annihilated." Allah describes in the Holy Qur'an this mistaken point of
view, saying: "There is naught but our life in this world; we die and we live and we shall
not be raised again." (23:37) As you all know, those who believe in Allah know that there
is life after death. When a man dies, his body becomes lifeless, but, unlike the animals,
his soul and sense of speech remain with similar, but purer bodies, and will be blessed or
chastised in the transitory state (barzakh) or purgatory.

Martyrs and those killed in the way of Allah enjoy special blessings. This has been
narrated in the Holy Qur'an. "And reckon not that those who are killed in Allah's way to
be dead; nay, they are alive (and) are provided with sustenance from their Lord, rejoicing
in what Allah has given them of His grace, and they rejoice for the same of those who,
(being left) behind them, have not yet joined them, that they shall have no fear, nor shall
they grieve." (3:169-170) I focus on the words, "They are alive (and) are provided with
sustenance from their Lord...." (3:169) They reply to us, but since our hearing is blocked
by the veils of the material world, we do not hear their voices. Accordingly, in the
salutation (ziarat) to Imam Husain, we say, "I bear witness that you hear what I say and
that you reply." Have you read sermon No. 85 of Nahju'l-Balagha? The progeny of the
Prophet are introduced as follows: "O, people, this is a saying of the Prophet: 'He who
dies from among us is not dead, and he who decays (after dying) from among us does not
really decay.'" (Nahju'l-Balagha, English translation, Volume 1, page 130, published by
Peer Muhammad Ebrahim Trust, Karachi.) That is, in the realm of light and spirituality,
the Ahle Bait live and remain imperishable.
Accordingly, Ibn Abi'l-Hadid Mu'tazali and Sheikh Muhammad Abduh, the famous mufti
of Egypt, commenting on the above, say that the descendants of the Holy Prophet are not
dead in the way others are. So when we stand before the tombs of the Imams, we do not
stand before the dead, and we do not address the dead. We stand before the living and
speak to the living. Hence, we are not worshippers of the dead. We worship Allah. Don't
you believe that Ali, Imam Husain, and the martyrs of Badr, Hunain, Uhud, and Karbala
sacrificed their lives in the way of Allah for the sake of truth? Didn't they face the tyranny
of the Quraish, the Bani Umayya, Yazid, and his followers, whose aim was to obliterate
the religion? Just as the firmness of the companions of the Prophet and the sacrifices of
the martyrs of Badr, Hunain, and Uhud led to the defeat of infidelity, in the same way
Imam Husain's firm resolve to sacrifice his life strengthened Islam. If the Imam had not
stood firm against evil forces, the damned Yazid would have destroyed Islam and would
have infused his infidelity into the Muslim community.

Sheikh: It is surprising that you call the caliph of the Muslims, Yazid Bin Mu'awiya, an
unbeliever. You should know that Mu'awiya Bin Abu Sufyan, appointed him caliph. The
second caliph, Umar Bin Khattab, and the third caliph, Uthman the oppressed, appointed
Mu'awiya Amir of Syria. Because of their ability and talent, people sincerely accepted
them as caliphs. So your reference to the caliphs of the Muslims as unbelievers means
that you have insulted not only all the Muslims who accepted them as caliphs but you
have also insulted the previous caliphs, who sanction their being caliph or Amir.

Of course they made a mistake, a pardonable mistake, which occurred during their
caliphate. The Prophet's grandson, Imam Husain, was murdered, but this was forgiven.
Since they repented, Allah, the Merciful, excused them. Imam Ghazali and Damiri have
elaborately dealt with this point in their books and have proven the purity of Caliph
Yazid.

Well-Wisher: I never expected that your fanaticism would go so far as to defend the
cause of damned Yazid. You say that since their predecessors thought it fit to make them
Amir or ruler, that all Muslims should have accepted them. This statement makes no
sense. We say that a caliph should be pure (absolutely free from all sin) and divinely
commissioned, so that we may not have to endure oppression. You say that Ghazali and
Damiri have defended the position of Yazid. But they were as fanatical as you are. No
sensible person would every try to defend the actions of the cursed Yazid. You say that
Yazid committed a "mistake" in murdering Imam Husain. But to murder the dearest son
of the Prophet, along with 72 other people, including small children and old men, and to
take the pious daughters of the Prophet prisoner bareheaded and barefaced, was not a
mere "mistake." It was an unspeakable atrocity. Moreover, his crimes were not confined
to this gruesome slaughter alone. There are many other instances of his infidelity.

THE INFIDELITY OF YAZID

Among the facts proving Yazid's infidelity are his own poetic couplets. For instance, he
writes:

"If drinking (wine) is prohibited in the religion of Muhammad, let it be so; I will accept
Christianity."

"It is this world alone for us. There is no other world. We should not be deprived of the
pleasures of this world."

These couplets appear in the collection of his poetical works, and Abu'l-Faraj Bin Jauzi
has recorded them in his Radd Ala'l-Muta'asibu'l-Anid. Again he says:

"One who frightens us with the story of doomsday, let him do so. These are false things
which deprive us of all the pleasures of sound and music."

Sibt Ibn Jauzi writes in his Tadhkira, page 148, that when the descendants of the Prophet
were brought as captives to Syria, Yazid was sitting in the second story of his palace. He
recited the two following couplets:

"When the camel litters carrying prisoners appeared, a crow cawed (a bad omen in
Arabia). I said: O crow, whether you caw or not, I have taken vengeance on the Prophet."

"Vengeance" refers to the fact that his elders and near relatives were killed in the battles
of Badr, Uhud, and Hunain. He avenged their deaths by killing the sons of the Prophet.

Another proof of his infidelity is that when he had a party to celebrate Husain's
martyrdom, he recited the irreligious couplets of Abdullah Bin Uzza Ba'ri. Sibt Ibn Jauzi,
Abu Raihan, and others have written that Yazid wished for the presence of his ancestors,
who were all infidels, and were killed in the battle of Badr on the order of the Prophet.
Yazid said: "I wish those of my clan who were killed at Badr, and those who had seen the
people of the Khazraj clan wailing (in the battle of Uhud) on account of lancet wounds,
were here. They would have hailed me with loud cries and said: 'O Yazid, may your
hands never be paralyzed' because I have killed the chiefs of his (the Prophet's) clan. I did
so as revenge for Badr, which has now been completed. The Bani Hashim only played a
game with government. There has come no message from Allah, nor was anything
revealed. I would not belong to the Khandaq family if I had not taken vengeance on the
descendants of the Prophet. We avenged the murders of Ali by killing his son, a horseman
and a brave lion."

SANCTION BY SUNNI ULEMA

FOR CURSING YAZID
Most of your ulema regard Yazid as an infidel. Even Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal and many
other great ulema of your sect suggest that curses on him should be recited. Abdu'r-
Rahman Abu'l-Faraj Bin Jauzi has written a book on this subject, Kitabu'l-Radd Ala'l-
Muta'asibu'l-Anidu'l-Mani'an La'n-e-Yazid La'natullah. Only a few of the fanatical ulema
of your sect, like Ghazali, have shown partiality to Yazid and have fabricated ludicrous
objections in defense of him. However, the majority of your ulema have noted his
irreligious, tyrannical behavior. Muslim states that as caliph, Yazid attempted to do away
with religion. Mas'udi, in his Muruju'z-Dhahab, Volume II, says that the character of
Yazid was like that of Pharaoh, but that Pharaoh was more just to his subjects than Yazid
was. Yazid's rule brought disgrace on the fair name of Islam. His wickedness included
drinking wine, murdering the Prophet's son, cursing the Prophet's successor, Ali,
demolishing the House of Allah (Masjidu'l-Haram), and mass killings. He committed
countless transgressions against divine law, sins which are unforgivable.

Nawab: How was Yazid responsible for mass killings?

Well-Wisher: Many historians have related this fact. Sibt Ibn Jauzi in his Tadhkira, page
63, says that some of the people of Medina went to Syria in 62 A.H. When they learned
of the sinful deeds of Yazid, they returned to Medina, broke their allegiance to him,
cursed him, and turned out his Governor, Uthman Bin Abi Sufyan. Abdullah Bin Hanzala
(Ghusilu'l-Mala'ikat) said: "O people, we did not revolt against Yazid until we verified
that he was an irreligious man. He killed the descendants of the Prophet, illegally
associates with mothers, daughters, and sisters, drinks wine, and does not offer the ritual
prayer."

When this news reached Yazid, he sent a large army of Syrians under Muslim Bin 'uqba
against the people of Medina. The slaughter of Muslims continued for three days. Yazid's
forces killed 700 noblemen of the Quraish, Muhajirs, and Ansars, and 10,000 common
people. I am ashamed to say how the Muslims were humiliated. I will quote only one
passage of Tadhkira, page 163, by Sibt Ibn Jauzi, reported by Abu'l-Hasan Mada'an:
"After the mass slaughter of the people of Medina, 1,000 unmarried women gave birth to
children."

SHOULD YAZID BE CURSED?

Sheikh: These accounts indicate his sins. Sins are forgivable and may be condoned, and
Yazid did show repentance. Allah, who is the Forgiver of sins, forgave him. So why do
you always curse him and call him wicked?

Well-Wisher: Some lawyers go on arguing a client's case until the last moment because
they have received fees from them, even though they know well the merits of the case.
But I fail to understand why you are so interested in defending Yazid, in the face of his
murders of Allah's Apostles and his slaughter of the people of Medina. Moreover, your
assertion that he showed repentance is not proven. Don't his denials of the main
principles of Islam, the Day of Resurrection, the revelation, and prophethood merit our
condemnation? Hasn't Allah cursed the oppressors? If these arguments are not sufficient
for the advocates of Yazid Bin Mu'awiya, I will, with your permission, quote two hadith
from your distinguished ulema.

Bukhari and Muslim in the Sahih, Allama Samhudi in Ta'rikhu'l-Medina, Abu'l-Faraj Bin
Jauzi in Kitabu'r-Radd Ala'l-Muta'asibu'l-Anid, Sibt Ibn Jauzi in Tadhkira-e-Khawasu'l-
Umma, Imam Ahmad Bin Hanbal in Musnad and others quote the Holy Prophet as
saying: "If anyone frightens and oppresses the people of Medina, Allah will frighten him
(i.e., on the Day of Judgement). He will be cursed by Allah, by the angels, and by all
humanity. And on the Day of Judgement, Allah will not accept any of his deeds."

The Prophet also said: "Curse be on him who frightens my city (the people of Medina)."
Didn't this mass slaughter frighten the people of Medina? If it did, then acknowledge
along with the Prophet, the angels, and all the people that that wicked malefactor was
cursed and will go on being cursed until the Day of Judgement.

The majority of your ulema have cursed Yazid. Abdullah Bin Muhammad Bin Amir
Shabrawi Shafi'i in Kitabu'l-Ittihaf be Hubbi'l-Ashraf Raji' ba La'n-e-Yazid, page 20,
writes that when the name of Yazid was mentioned before Mulla Sa'd Taftazani, he said:
"Curse be on him and on his companions and helpers." Allama Samhudi in his Jawahiru'l-
Iqdain, is reported to have said: "The ulema in general have concurred that it is permitted
to curse him who murdered Imam Husain, or who ordered him to be murdered, or who
sanctioned his murder, or who agreed to his murder."

Ibn Jauzi, Abu Ya'la, and Salih Bin Ahmad, arguing from the verses of the Holy Qur'an
write that, "It is proven that cursing Yazid is permissible. It is the duty of all Muslims that
they should know the rights that Imam Husain has over them, and how, with the strength
of his suffering oppression and tyranny, he watered the tree of Islam with his own blood
and the blood of his family. Otherwise, that blessed tree might have died because of the
tyranny of the Bani Umayya. It was Husain who gave Islam a new life."

I regret that, instead of recognizing the services that these holy people rendered for Islam,
you raise objections about pilgrims who visit their tombs and call them worshippers of
the dead. We often read that in the central places of countries, like Paris, London, Berlin,
and Washington there are tombs honoring the "unknown soldier." It is said that, suffering
the tyranny of the enemy and in defense of his country, he sacrificed his life. But there
was no mark on his body or clothes to indicate his family or city. Because he gave his life
in defense of his country, even though he was unknown, he is worthy of respect. When a
king or any prominent personality visits such cities, he visits the grave of the unknown
soldier and places wreaths of flowers on it. An unknown soldier receives much respect,
but I regret that, instead of respecting the pilgrims who visit the tombs of learned, pious
Muslims, we criticize them. Some of them knew the entire Qur'an by heart. They
sacrificed their lives in the defense of Islam. These people include the trustees of Allah,
the Holy Prophet, and descendants of the holy Prophet.

DESECRATION OF GRAVES
Some Muslims have actually demolished such tombs and made tea on the chests placed
over the graves! Such a tragedy occurred in 1216 A.H. on the Eidi'l-Ghadir, when most of
the residents of Karbala go to Najaf for pilgrimage. The Wahhabis of Najaf attacked
Karbala and murdered the Shias. They demolished the tombs of those who sacrificed
their lives for the sake of Islam. About 5,000 residents of Karbala, including the ulema,
the elderly, women, children, were slaughtered. The treasury of Imam Husain was looted
and precious stores, gold lamps, and valuable carpets were taken. The precious chest
above the tomb was burned and tea was made on it. Many people were taken away as
prisoners. Woe be to such Muslims!

How regrettable it is that in all civilized countries the tombs of kings, intellectuals, and
even unknown soldiers are respected, but Muslims, who are expected to show a better
sense of the importance of the preservation of the tombs of those who are their pride,
plunder and destroy them like savages. In Mecca and Medina the Wahabis destroyed the
tombs of the martyrs of Uhud, including that of Hamza, the ancestors of the holy Prophet,
like Abdu'l-Muttalib, Abdullah, and others. They also destroyed the tombs of the family
of the Prophet, his sons, like Imam Hasan, Imam Zainu'l-Abidin, Imam Muhammad
Baqir, Imam Ja'far Sadiq, Bibi Fatima, daughter of the Holy Prophet, and many others of
the Bani Hashim and distinguished ulema. Still they call themselves Muslims. Of course
they construct huge mausoleums for their own great men and kings. The fact is that the
ulema of both sects have quoted many hadith inviting us to visit the graves of the faithful,
so that the tombs may be saved from destruction. The Holy Prophet himself visited the
graves of the faithful and invoked Allah for their deliverance.

THE DESCENDANTS OF THE HOLY PROPHET

ARE MARTYRS IN THE WAY OF ALLAH
AND ARE ALIVE
Do you think that the exalted family of the Prophet who gave their lives in the way of
religion are martyrs? If you say they are not martyrs, what is your argument? If they are
martyrs, how can you call them "dead?" The Holy Qur'an states: "They are alive (and) are
provided with sustenance from their Lord." (3:169) So according to the Holy Qur'an and
the hadith, those holy people are alive. Hence, we are not worshippers of the dead. We do
not salute the dead, we praise the living. And no Shia, educated or uneducated, regards
them as the sole remover of his difficulties. He regards them as pious servants of Allah
and a means of approach to Allah. We place our desires before the righteous Imams so
that they may invoke Allah to show kindness to us. When we say, "O Ali, help me," "
Husain, help me," it is just like a man who wants to approach the king. He may go to the
prime minister and ask him for help. He certainly does not consider the prime minister of
the king as the final resort for removal of his difficulties. His only aim is to approach the
king through him since, by virtue of his position, he can easily approach the king. The
Shias do not regard the descendants of the Prophet as partners in divine actions; they
consider them as his pious servants.
 THE POSITION OF INFALLIBLE IMAMS
Since they are the representatives of Almighty Allah, they submit the desires of the needy
to Him. If the request is worthy, He accepts it. Otherwise, its recompense is given in the
hereafter. One point should not be allowed to remain unexplained: the Shias regard the
position of the faultless Imams as higher than that of the other martyrs of Islam.

Hafiz: This statement requires an explanation. What is the difference between your
Imams and all other Imams except that they are related to the Prophet?

Well-Wisher: If you look at the position of the Imamate, you will see a clear contrast
between the conception of the Imamate held by Shias and Sunnis.